You apologized for her hurt feelings. You are way too focused on trying to manage everyone’s feelings. You didn’t apologize for your actions because you don’t think you did anything wrong.

This is you making excuses why you don’t owe her an apology.

She’s overreacting, and your SIL is out of line. But you were wrong to pack up her things with no warning and only tell her afterward. You should have given her a timeline and told her if she wasn’t done by x day you would box her things so that she could go through them at her leisure.

Yes, some cheesecakes are made with ricotta.

My sister had a tiny wedding with immediate family only, then an extended family reception a few months later, then a party for all their friends on their first anniversary. If you haven’t contributed yet the money you offered for either a week at a resort or a reception, give them that for their big party. If you have, then just show up and party with them unless they ask for help.

I suspect it’s because with couples marrying later and people not staying in the area they grew up in a higher percentage of wedding guests are from out of town. When everyone can hop over to the church for a few hours in the afternoon and go home for dinner a cake and punch reception makes sense. When people have traveled hundreds of miles at your request it’s nice to feed them if you can, rather than sending them back to their hotel to figure it out themselves.

It’s not your sister in law’s responsibility to celebrate your birthday. It sounds like she’s a jerk anyway, though. If having a birthday celebration was important to you you and your DH should either have declined the invitation to her house, “sorry, we can’t make it that day we already have plans” or arranged to do something for your birthday at another time. I’d let this one go. Edit: this was several years ago? Why are you rehashing it now?

I don’t think you need anything else. There are several ways to mix-and-match a complete meal from what you already have.

He sued her and as part of the suit required them to produce evidence. They want him to cover their cost of producing that evidence.

This is, according to lawyers I know, completely within the realm of normal for a trial this size. It isn’t just printing the documents, it’s sorting out what is covered by the subpoena, verifying provenance and dating. It takes a lot of staff time by high-level people including lawyers.

I didn’t have twins, but I did tandem nurse a toddler and an infant, sometimes at the same time. I really wish now I hadn’t banned anyone from taking photos when we were nursing, because I would love to look back at some of the weird ways we stacked. Also nursed sleeping and using a sling, with a cup size near the middle of the alphabet.

No. The legal definition of defamation includes that it has to be a provably false statement of fact.

Apply. The benefits to you if it works out are huge.

The equivalent situation would be if a child accused me of abusing them, not an internet acquaintance. Which would not be impossible, given that I have contact with some very disturbed children. No, I wouldn’t sue them.

Is it Groundhog Day?

That’s fine. It’s also completely irrelevant to whether anyone on this thread is reflexively defending AH because she’s a woman, which you may recall was the claim I was responding to.

Saying that statements of the form “a real victim would never x” are false and harmful has nothing to do with whether this particular woman is a liar. Saying that defamation suits impinge on the first Amendment and thus have high standards which this case doesn’t meet has nothing to do with whether this particular woman is a liar. Saying that bringing a suit you don’t expect to win in order to “get your side out” is an abuse of the courts has nothing to do with whether this particular woman is a liar. Saying that the precedent of suing an accuser is dangerous because the standards for criminal conviction should be very high, but that doesn’t mean that someone who makes an accusation without enough proof for a conviction is lying has nothing to do with whether this particular woman is a liar. Ironically, I am a fan of Johnny Depp’s work, which all of his defenders in this thread claim not to be. But he should not prevail in this case, regardless of whether this particular woman is a liar.

Bullshit. There is no one is this thread who has said anything like that.

Point to the provably false statement of fact in that article. Implication is not defamation. Hyperbole is not defamation. Not giving all the background information and slanting facts in your own favor is not defamation.

Do you see any irony in the fact that you say this when you haven’t read the article that’s the basis for the defamation claim?

So what? Have you read the article? It neither mentions Depp nor claims she was a victim of abuse. Nothing she says in court can retroactively make that article meet the legal standard for defamation.

If JD were on trial for abuse he would deserve the benefit of the doubt. He’s not. AH does not have to prove that he abused her to not be guilty of defamation. She gets to tell her side of the story the way she sees it, just like all of us do. We have a high standard of proof in criminal cases for very good reason. But if the risk of an accusation is that you’ll be sued if there isn’t enough evidence to convict then no one will dare to accuse anyone with enough money to hire high-powered lawyers. This is totally a he said, she said situation, which doesn’t belong in the courts. I’m not on Team Amber here, I’m on Team First Amendment.

Sure. It had nothing to do with Disney being tired of him showing up drunk/high or not showing up at all and having to send staff to track him down and sober him up and feeding him his lines through an earbud because he didn’t bother to learn them. It was all his ex’s fault. Notice he’s not suing either of the production companies for wrongful termination.

Which is why suing someone for sh!t-talking their ex should be tossed out of court. I feel like I’m living on a different planet than most of the posters on this thread. “Let’s drown her and burn her body and then I’ll f-ck the corpse to make sure she’s dead” is just venting but referring to yourself “as a spokesperson for women who’ve suffered abuse” is defamation?

Different case. He sued the Sun in 2018 for calling him a wife beater. He already lost that one.